Considering the criteria required for a patent, discuss what seemed
to be lacking in the plaintiff's patent.
As per Kubasek et al., (2020), for a patent to be granted, it must meet
four criteria:
· Must be patentable
· Must be novel
· Must be useful
· Must be nonobvious
Inventions can start with an idea however not every idea can be
called an invention. If the plaintiff had researched the idea or
consulted an attorney, she would have known that other on-line
shopping platforms were using similar processes in order to improve
customer service. So the product itself is not novel or nonobvious. I
believe is the reasoning in the judge’s decision that the product itself
was not patentable in the first place.
I disagree with the judge that Mr. Higgins infringed upon Ms. Garners
patent. Her ruling is contradictory in my opinion. How can the judge
rule that product itself is not patentable by Ms. Garner, then state
Mr. Higgins infringed upon Ms. Garners patent? If the product was
not patentable then how did Mr. Higgins or his company infringe?
I also question Ms. Garners motives. Why take Mr. Higgins and his
company to court? There were similar on-line shopping platform
doing the same thing.
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., &
Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic Business Law (fifth). New York, Ny:
Mcgraw-Hill Education.
